Karen Refugees: Humanitarian Aid

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assistance they have given to Karen refugees in Thailand in the last two years through the United Nations and other channels; and which other donors assist those refugees on a similar scale.

Baroness Amos: The Department for International Development has given £537,500 over the last two years to the Burma Border Consortium, a group of NGOs which are the main providers of humanitarian assistance to the Karen refugees in Thailand. Other donors that have provided substantial assistance to these refugees include the Australian, Dutch, Swedish and Norwegian Governments and the European Union.

Poverty in Developing Countries

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they define the poorest group in a developing country to be targeted by international aid; what guidelines they give to the Department for International Development staff overseas on such target groups; and how often these are updated.

Baroness Amos: The Department for International Development (DFID) recognises the multidimensional nature of poverty. These dimensions include income levels and assets, health, educational status and opportunity, political empowerment, and security. The International Development Targets (IDTs) set out in the 1997 White Paper on International Development go some way toward capturing all these aspects, and form the centrepiece of this Government's policy towards poverty elimination.
	While the IDTs provide a useful focus, country level interventions need to be based on a detailed undertstanding of the particular situation facing the poor in each country. For DFID these interventions are outlined in its Country Strategy Papers. However, even with the best analysis and targeting, reaching the poorest in any community is always a major challenge.
	DFID is developing and strengthening the existing guidance and training for all their staff--in the UK and overseas--to help ensure that poverty elimination remains at the centre of all the department's activities. In particular the guidance and training will:
	introduce staff to the dimensions of poverty in developing countries;
	assist staff to understand and diagnose the key factors influencing poverty;
	help staff use the diagnosis to develop appropriate targeted country strategies.
	We are planning to make enhanced guidance and training available to DFID staff this year. This will be updated on an ongoing basis.

Bonded Labourers

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In which developing countries bonded labourers are listed by the Department for International Development among the poorest groups, and to what extent they are being targeted by development assistance such as micro-credit and income generation schemes.

Baroness Amos: The Department for International Development (DFID) does not keep lists of the poorest groups or lists of developing countries in which bonded labourers are amongst the poorest groups. Bonded labour exists, in many guises, in many countries, despite international conventions and national laws which clearly identify bonded labour as a contravention of human rights. Marginalisation and poverty are key factors which help to maintain this practice.
	The elimination of poverty and fulfilment of human rights for all are comprehensively linked. We are supporting many activities which encourage governments actively to uphold human rights and to develop policies for trade and economic investment which encourage wide based growth and reduce social marginalisation and inequality. We are also supporting advocacy and action by civil society organisations and encouraging socially responsible business practices within the private sector.
	In some instances, the availability of micro-credit and other income generating schemes can offer poor people a viable alternative to bonded labour. DFID supports micro-finance and income-generation projects for poor groups all over the developing world, particularly in East, Central and Southern Africa, and South Asia. Services such as savings and micro-credit for income generation are delivered through some form of private, community-based institution, which is itself typically supported by a larger organisation such as a bank, a credit co-operative or an NGO. For these support institutions to develop and to be effective, a minimum level of social organisation is required amongst the savers and borrowers. However, where bonded labour relations exist, vested interests that control that labour will usually obstruct any form of social organisation, especially by external institutions. This situation can severely inhibit the successful extension of effective micro-credit institutions to bonded labourers.
	To date, no DFID micro-finance projects have explicitly targeted bonded labourers. However, DFID has delivered credit services to very poor communities that include bonded labourers. For example, in India, the DFID/CARE International Credit and Savings for Household Enterprises (CASHE) project in Andrha Pradesh includes many bonded labourers. In Western and Southern Orissa, where bonded labour is prevalent amongst tribal people, micro-finance is one among several interventions DFID is supporting to increase the security and range of livelihoods available to poor rural people.

Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland: Review

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to publish the report of the Review of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I can confirm that the Government intend to publish the report of the Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland.

Marine Environmental High Risk Areas: Report

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they intend to issue for consultation the report commissioned from Dovre Safetec on Marine Environmental High Risk Areas; and which bodies they will consult.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: We will publish the report very shortly. We will consult anybody who has an interest, including maritime, environmental and coastal interests.

RAF Personnel Premature Voluntary Retirement

Lord Swinfen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many members of the Royal Air Force had applied for Premature Voluntary Retirement at 1 January or the nearest convenient date.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: On 1 January 2000 there were 1,561 members of the Royal Air Force who had applied for Premature Voluntary Retirement.

Depleted Uranium Anti-tank Ammunition

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have considered withdrawing depleted uranium anti-tank ammunition.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We have no plans to remove depleted uranium based anti-tank ammunition from service.

Depleted Uranium and Gulf War Illnesses

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the absence of clinical indications, they will test a sample of Gulf veterans for presence of depleted uranium (DU) in order to eliminate it as a cause of Gulf War illness and to restore confidence in DU ammunition.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Ministry of Defence is well aware of the suggested link between exposure to DU and the illnesses being experienced by some Gulf veterans. However, this is only one of a number of factors which have been suggested as causes of Gulf veterans' illnesses and, pending further medical and scientific evidence, the Ministry of Defence is keeping an open mind.
	The Ministry of Defence is aware of DU testing work involving UK Gulf veterans that has been undertaken in Canada which has led to some veterans being told that they are excreting unusually high levels of DU. The Ministry of Defence still has not seen any robust scientific data justifying this claim. Recognising that this has caused veterans some concern, however, the MoD has offered to arrange independent DU testing for those UK veterans who had their urine tested for DU in Canada. A draft protocol under which this would take place is currently being considered by veterans' representatives. I should add that this new initiative must not be taken as an indication that the Ministry of Defence believes veterans do have high levels of DU in their bodies. Rather it is something the Ministry of Defence would like to do so that we can move forward from a firm scientific basis. This initiative is in addition to our policy which has been in place since March 1999 whereby Gulf veterans referred to the Ministry of Defence's Medical Assessment Programme will be tested for uranium where clinically appropriate.

New Millennium Experience Company: Chief Executive

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there has been a change of Chief Executive at the New Millennium Experience Company.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes. Jennie Page has resigned as Chief Executive of NMEC. The NMEC Board have appointed Pierre-Yves Gerbeau to succeed her. He took up his post yesterday. A copy of the Press Notice has been placed in the Libraries. Jennie Page has done a sterling job seeing the Millennium Dome through from its inception to opening, on time and on budget, on 31 December. The scale of this achievement should not be underestimated. However, it is the view of the NMEC Board, supported by the Shareholder on behalf of the Government, that a different approach and different skills are now needed to manage the project successfully during its year of operation.

Crusoe Microchip

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	To what extent their information technology procurement strategies are taking account of the recent release of the Crusoe microchip.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We are aware of the Crusoe microchip, and we are monitoring how it fares in the market place.

10 Downing Street: Staff Costs

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 13 December 1999 (WA 6), what is the cost of the Prime Minister's official staff; what was the figure at 1 April 1997; and how these costs in each case divide between public funds, party funds and the Prime Minister's private funds.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The total cost to date for staff at 10 Downing Street is £3.9 million. This compares to £3.4 million for the year 1996-97. These costs are met from public funds. The Government are not accountable for the costs of any staff working in No. 10 who are paid for by the Labour Party or from the personal funds of the Prime Minister or his wife. I am sorry for not writing to the noble Earl, as promised, on this issue.

Parliament: Eligibility for Membership

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Jay of Paddington on 12 January (WA122), whether they will give an assurance that there will be no discriminatory bar to service in either House of Parliament, including an age bar.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: There are existing rules which limit eligibility for both Houses of Parliament, including the requirement to have attained the age of 21. The Government have no present plans to change that rule.

House of Lords Appointment Commission

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the House of Lords Appointments Commission will be statutory, as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Government have consistently made clear that the Appointments Commission for the transitional House will be non-statutory. The recommendation of the Royal Commission for a rather different Appointments Commission with significantly more powers in relation to political members of the second Chamber makes no difference to our assessment of the situation in the context of the transitional House. The Government will make clear their views on the proposals of the Royal Commission in due course.

House of Lords Appointment Commission

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: asked the Leader of the House:
	What role she envisages for the House of Lords in decisions on the establishment of the House of Lords Appointments Commission and the conduct of its duties.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: None. The functions which the Appointments Commission will be taking over from the Prime Minister are functions in which the House of Lords has no locus.

House of Lords: Membership Arrangements

Lord Dean of Harptree: asked the Leader of the House:
	Why no statement was made to the House of Lords about future arrangements for determining members of the House before the Cabinet Office issued Press Release CAB 18/00; and when she intends to make a statement on the Government's plans for an Appointments Commission.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Government's plans for future arrangements in determining members of the House of Lords were set out fully in the White Paper Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords (Cm 4183) which was published on 20 January 1999. They were also set out in detail, and extensively discussed, during the debates in the last Session on the House of Lords Act 1999. CAB 18/00 merely announced a stage in a process which had been set out fully on many occasions.

House of Lords Appointments Commission

Lord Dean of Harptree: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether members of the House of Lords will be eligible to be the Chairman or members of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes.

House of Lords Appointments Commission

Lord Dean of Harptree: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Chairman and members of the House of Lords Appointments Commission will be paid; and if so, how much.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Chairman will receive an honorarium of £5,000 a year and the members £3,000 a year.

House of Lords Reform

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the statement by the Leader of the House that "detailed provisions may be reached in conjunction with other political parties and procedures for achieving the next stage of change" (H.L. Deb., 24 January, col. 1318), what mechanisms they intend to put in place to implement this form of consultation about Stage Two of House of Lords reform with other political parties.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: We shall need to look at the most suitable mechanisms in the light of the overall responses to the Royal Commission's report. The House will of course have an opportunity to debate it.

House of Lords Reform

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the statement by the Leader of the House that "detailed provisions may be reached in conjunction with other political parties and procedures for achieving the next stage of change" (H.L. Deb., 24 January, col. 1318), whether the term "other political parties" is intended to include the Cross-Bench Lords in the House of Lords.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes.

House of Lords Reform

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in relation to House of Lords reform, the statement by the Leader of the House of Lords that "the Joint Committee would be established in order to consider the parliamentary aspects of any reform" (H.L. Deb., 24 January, cols. 1318-1322) is consistent with the commitment in the Labour Party's general election manifesto that "A committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to undertake a wide-ranging review of possible further change and then bring forward proposals for reform".

Baroness Jay of Paddington: We made clear in our White Paper Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords (Cm. 4183) that the Royal Commission built on the proposal in the Manifesto. Both were aimed at ensuring that there was a wide-ranging debate before any proposals for further reform were formulated.

House of Lords Reform

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the replies by the Leader of the House on 24 January (H.L. Debs. 1318-1322), whether the Labour Party's general election manifesto has now been superseded by the White Paper on House of Lords Reform.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: The White Paper Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords (Cm. 4183) built on the Labour Party's Manifesto. It made clear that the reasons for the decision to appoint a Royal Commission were twofold. First, it would allow an open and transparent deliberative process involving full and wide debate of all the issues. Second, it could begin work immediately, without having to wait for the completion of the first stage of reform. In those circumstances, the precise role of the proposed Joint Committee has also been refined.

House of Lords Appointments: Scrutiny

Lord Mancroft: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the House of Lords Appointments Commission will have powers to vet the suitability of appointments made by the Prime Minister to the House of Lords.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Government made clear in their White Paper Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords (Cm. 4183) that the Appointments Commission would take over the present function of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in vetting the suitability of all recommendations for peerages.

House of Lords Appointments: Scrutiny

Lord Mancroft: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the House of Lords Appointments Commission will have any responsibilities with regard to political appointments to the House.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Government made clear in their White Paper Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords (Cm 4183) that the Appointments Commission would take over the present function of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in vetting the suitability of all recommendations for peerages.

House of Lords Appointments: Number

Lord Mancroft: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the House of Lords Appointments Commission will decide the overall number of Cross-Bench Peers in the House of Lords.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: No. We set out in our White Paper Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords (Cm 4183) that the Prime Minister would continue to be responsible for deciding how many nominations to invite from the Appointments Commission. We also made it clear that we would maintain a significant independent Cross-Bench element in the transitional House.

Overstayers: Suspensive Right of Appeal

Baroness Howells of St Davids: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to ensure that current overstayers will not lose the right to a suspensive appeal against a decision to remove them after 1 October 2000.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Section 9 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides for a minimum three-month period during which overstayers can apply to regularise their immigration status. If they do so, and the application is refused after the new removal procedures are implemented, then the old procedures will apply to their case after 1 October and a suspensive right of appeal will be retained.
	The Immigration (Regularisation Period for Overstayers) Regulations 2000 came into force today. The period runs from now until the 1 October 2000, which is the day before the Human Rights Act 1998 is expected to come into force, and thus lasts for a minimum of almost eight months.
	My honourable Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office (Mrs Roche) will shortly write to all members in another place giving details of the scheme and how an application should be made under it. Copies of the information leaflet we have produced will be placed in the Library. My honourable Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office (Mrs Roche) will be discussing further publicity with relevant interest groups, but as a first step the leaflets are being distributed to local community groups through Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.
	The scheme is solely intended to retain a suspensive right of appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority for those overstayers who make a specific application to us during the period. It is by no means an amnesty: the same considerations apply whether an application under the scheme is made or not. All overstayers should be aware that a decision to remove them from the United Kingdom is, and will remain, the normal response to their unlawful behaviour. Only when the compassionate circumstances outweigh the public interest in maintaining an effective immigration control will we allow them to remain.

Human Rights: Outstanding Obligations and Commitments

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will list:
	(a) their outstanding human rights obligations, such as judgments of the European Court of Human Rights which await implementation;
	(b) their outstanding commitments to legislate on human rights; and
	(c) those manifesto commitments on human rights which are still outstanding;
	and, in respect of each, why it is still outstanding, and when and how appropriate measures will be introduced.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: There are 28 cases outstanding where the Court has found a violation and where the execution of the judgment is being supervised by the Committee of Ministers. They are A; Bowman; Cable, Hood and Others; Chahal; Gaskin; Gordon; Halford; Johnson, Denson and Poole; Johnson S; Lustig Prean and Beckett; Matthews; McLeod; John Murray; Perks and Others; Saunders; Scarth; Smith and Ford; Smith and Grady; Steel and Others; T and V; and Tinnelly and McElduff. In several of these cases the necessary payments have been made and remedial measures, where appropriate, have been taken; they await merely the closing resolution of the committee. In others, the measures are in the process of implementation or under consideration. To list the situation for each judgment would be too detailed for the Official Report and provide only a snapshot of a constantly changing situation. I shall write to the noble Lord with further details.
	Since the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, the only outstanding legislative commitment is to amend three rules of family law to allow the United Kingdom to ratify the 7 Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights; and there are no outstanding manifesto commitments on human rights.

Human Rights: Outstanding Obligations and Commitments

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What time and priority have been given by the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers since May 1997 to those wishing to meet them to discuss human rights issues, including implementation of outstanding judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the Government's approach to human rights litigation; and what requests for such meetings have been made and are still to be dealt with.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government place great emphasis on human rights and to discussing human rights issues with interested parties. Information on the number of requests for meetings, on requests still to be dealt with, and on time given to such meetings, and an assessment of priority given to such meetings, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Human Rights: Outstanding Obligations and Commitments

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How and through whom they conduct overall supervision of human rights matters so as to ensure that their European Convention on Human Rights obligations are implemented, whether in the case of outstanding judgments of the European Court of Human Rights or in anticipation of findings of incompatibility and likely adverse court judgments.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: For implementation of judgments of the European Court, the agent (one of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Legal Advisers) communicates the judgment and explains its requirements to the lead department. It is for that department to pay any sums awarded by the Court and formulate any general measures which may be required, including proposals for legislation, but the agent ensures that the proposals would give proper effect to the judgment.
	The Cabinet Office helps to co-ordinate issues which affect more than one department, working through a committee of officials from the key departments, which meets regularly. It is envisaged that consideration and implementation of decisions of domestic courts under the Human Rights Act 1998 will be co-ordinated in this way. The Home Office is also involved in making recommendations about preparations for implementation of the Act and passing on good practice to departments.
	It is, however, the responsibility of each department to ensure that its proposals, legislation, procedures and practices are compatible with the Convention and the Human Rights Act 1998. This involves a continuous review of legislation and procedures for Convention points. Making compatibility a matter for the centre could dilute our efforts to mainstream human rights awareness throughout Whitehall.

Public Trust Office

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will announce how they intend to take forward reform of the Public Trust Office following the Quinquennial Review of its executive agency status, published on 18 November 1999.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: When I published the Quinquennial Review of the Public Trust Office, I indicated that I would explore the Review's recommendations in a programme of reform and would make a further announcement on the way forward in February 2000. It remains my view that radical reforms are needed but I am also determined to ensure, in an area where we are trying to protect the interests of some of the most vulnerable in society, that we consider very carefully the full implications of any changes we make. Several organisations and professional groups commenting on the Quinquennial Review have asked for an extension of my timetable in order to put forward their views. In order to ensure that all have sufficient time to give their views, I now intend to allow comments to be submitted up until 3 March. I will consider these and make an announcement on the way forward for the Public Trust Office by this Easter.

Government Use of Private Sector Lawyers

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What use they have made of private sector lawyers since May 1997 (or for the part of that period for which figures are available) for assistance in (a) drafting legislation, and (b) litigation; on what basis such lawyers are remunerated; and whether such remuneration is set at a rate below what would be regarded by the courts as reasonable for solicitors undertaking publicly funded civil legal aid work.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: (a) The Government's primary legislation is mainly drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Exceptions are the consolidation and law reform Bills drafted by the Law Commission and the work on rewriting tax legislation being done by the Inland Revenue's Tax Law Rewrite project. In these cases, the drafting is done by Counsel on secondment from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. The legislation for Scotland relating to reserved matters (including such elements of consolidation and law reform Bills for the Scottish Law Commission) is drafted by Counsel on secondment from the Office of the Scottish Parliamentary Counsel in Edinburgh. Some Government Bills extending only to Northern Ireland are drafted by the Office of the Legislative Counsel in Belfast by arrangement with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.
	Since May 1997, a total of four private sector lawyers have been employed at various times to assist with the drafting of legislation being prepared by the OPC or by the Inland Revenue Rewrite project. All four had acquired the necessary skills when they were members of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, before moving into private practice. Their remuneration has varied depending on the amount and difficulty of the work they were contracted to do, but generally speaking has been commensurate with the cost to Government of similar work being done by Parliamentary Counsel. Meaningful comparisons between the remuneration of drafting and for civil legal aid work are not possible because of their different natures.
	Some departments employ private sector lawyers from time to time to draft secondary legislation. However, no central records are kept of the volume of work involved, of the number of private sector lawyers who have been employed nor of their remuneration. This information could only be assembled at disproportionate cost.
	(b) Litigation for the Government is handled, almost entirely, by Treasury Solicitor or, where departments supply their own legal services, by the in-house litigation teams within those departments. For geographical or other reasons, however, private sector lawyers frequently become involved in government litigation (including public inquiries) as agents. Generally speaking, solicitors from the private sector instructed in this way as agents are remunerated in a manner broadly comparable to the manner in which they would be remunerated for private client work. Rates will vary accordingly to the location and type of litigation work involved. No statistics are available as to the number of litigation cases in which private sector lawyers have been instructed or of the fees paid, and it would not be practicable to provide such information without examining many thousands of individual files.

Government Litigation

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what occasions since May 1997 they have proceeded with litigation in spite of legal advice that they had no reasonable prospects of success; whether it is government policy to pursue litigation in such circumstances; and whether their policy is consistent with the policy of the Legal Aid Board in respect of litigation by private persons which is judged to have no reasonable prospects of success.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Consultation has taken place between the various departments handling government litigation, and it was found, in view of the volume of such litigation, that it was not possible to give any definitive figures of the type requested: this would involve examining many thousands of files. Moreover, the information requested is almost certainly covered by legal professional privilege, and it would be necessary to approach each client for their agreement that the privilege might be waived in each case where legal advice to settle had not been followed. The time and effort that would necessarily be involved in such an exercise is thought to be disproportionate. (Also, it is worth noting that, in the majority of litigation cases, it is not possible to be categorical about e.g. prospect of winning or losing.)

EU Veto: Taxation

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, following recent proposals from the European Commission to abolish the veto for all forms of taxation that impinge on "the proper functioning of the internal market", they intend to retain their commitment, as stated in the Labour Party general election manifesto, "to retention of the national veto over key matters of public interest, such as taxation.".

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes.

EU Veto: Taxation

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the statement from Richard Corbett, the Labour spokesman on reform in the European Parliament, that "there is no danger of Britain losing the veto" is consistent with their policy towards the European dimension on tax matters.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the Government have repeatedly made clear, the United Kingdom considers that tax decisions should continue to be taken by unanimity.

Parliamentary Data and Video Network

Lord Marlesford: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	Why the Parliamentary Data and Video Network (PDVN) is subject to interruptions to the main electricity supply in the Palace of Westminster; and whether he will take steps to see that standby power supplies are made available to the PDVN.

Lord Boston of Faversham: All data service centres and major distribution points are already protected by battery back-up and the Palace of Westminster already has a standby power supply. There is no specific generation equipment allocated to the PDVN.

Parliamentary Data and Video Network

Lord Marlesford: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	On what occasions during the last six months there have been interruptions to the e-mail service offered by the Parliamentary Data and Video Network (PDVN), indicating the date, duration and cause of interruption in each case.

Lord Boston of Faversham: Since the replacement of the network infrastructure in August 1999, there have been six interruptions to the e-mail service to multiple users across all or part of the Parliamentary estate, totalling 6.1 hours. The Director of Communications will write to the noble Lord with full details.